Posted - 2012.04.23 18:15:00 -
[122] - Quote
This screws Caldari ships horribly. Their sig radius is already pretty terrible due to the modules they fit, so the sig penalty didn't do much. They are already pretty slow to begin with as well. So, now they will have slightly smaller, but still terribly large sig radii as well as being even slower. Unless you plan on getting rid of the sig radius penalty for extenders, this is just going to be a big nerf to Caldari ships.

Should have formulated the original post more as a question than a statement, sorry for the confusion.

The point of posting this in "Feature & Ideas Discussion" is because it is a high level concept that was passed along, and that we wanted to discuss before doing anything with it as it has some repercussions.

This is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has been started on it yet. We don't want to repeat the problem that happened with booster changes during Crucible, thus the point of this is to involve player feedback earlier in the development process so we can filter points out before they make it to Singularity.

I will tweak the first post to reflect this.

you know there is something like a council specially elected that you can ask if this kind of change is dumb or not, before putting it this way to the community, i think its called the CSM but i'm not sure...

If you wanted to make active tanking more viable why not increase the bonus's of the rigs used in active tanking and leave the other rigs alone? Maybe tack on a small calibration penalty to keep it even? It may make a few ships like the myrmidon 'lolbricks' but then again you already have a passive 'lolbrick' in the drake.

Posted - 2012.04.23 18:25:00 -
[127] - Quote
I like these changes. Sure, my current ship may be hurt by it, but if you go through with this then lots more of the existing ships will find use in battles.TLDR; Nice change, expands Eve's usable ships from 1 or 2 to 10 or 20 IMHO.All games have QQ, but only Eve has Q.Q

Posted - 2012.04.23 18:28:00 -
[128] - Quote
Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.

A resistance rig gives a 30% bonus to one damage type, the drawback could be a 5-10% reduction to all the other resistances.

Posted - 2012.04.23 18:33:00 -
[129] - Quote
I hate this change because it buffs drakes + friends (keeps their buffer tank, decreases their sig radius, and they don't care about speed because they were bricks to begin with) while nerfing the hell out of HACs and cruisers.

This has some very interesting implications. For large fleets, it will prevent someone from getting volleyed off the field due to large amounts of alpha damage -- but this will force logis to keep repping ships for a longer amount of time. Also, makes titan DD's much more interesting, making it possible to take a DD and potentially be saved by a large amount of reps.

Edit:Thoughts? I can see this becoming a big game-changer mod. It will change how fleets fight/engage and probably put more logis on the field. At the same time, it should be possible to create a EWAR type module that has the opposite effect -- this will distribute remote reps to a target over time.

And thus an interesting mechanic proposed to help ative tanks has just tremendously boosted passive buffers since this mod ensures that they will not be spiked prior to the first incoming reps.

To promote active tanks, this needs to be a feature of the active tanking mod where incoming damage gets queued and evened out in overlapping damage queues, with your active tank constantly working against those queues. Damage in the current timeslice above your rep ability is removed from your HP buffer. Reps above the current damage slice replenish your base HP buffer. With a visual aid how much damage is currently piled up against you.

The important bit here would be that while every incoming hit gets evened out over for example 10 seconds, against a 2 second rate of fire weapon you would have 5 such evened out queues on top of each other, overwhelming you gradually. One could even add a stacking penalty to those, where above the 20th queue all incoming damage gets a gradual reduction. We'd have to argue what would share the same queue in those cases (individual weapon/drone queues or one queue per attacker).

This would really help small active tanked skirmish gangs, because you know that you can't just outblob their non-scaling reps (needs work on details. not a final suggestion. not fit for direct live use. slippery when wet).

Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.

But thats exactly how the rigs work now.They affect a basic ship stat (resistance / shield / armor) and get penalized at another basic ship stat (speed / sig).

Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.

But thats exactly how the rigs work now.They affect a basic ship stat (resistance / shield / armor) and get penalized at another basic ship stat (speed / sig).

No, it's not.

The active tanking rigs (the ones that modify cap draw, repping amount and cycle time) still affect the ship's base stats GÇö sig radius or speed GÇö rather than the fitting requirements of the shield boosters or reppers.GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥

-+ It needs to be constant, because outside of a 1v1, that's how the damage will be delivered. The degree of GÇ£constantnessGÇ¥ determines how large the aforementioned buffer needs to be.t.

Just the reverse - active tank should provide boosting in large chunks, otherwise it degenerates into boring passive regenetation, something alike current fugly Drakes.

The ratio between total HP and HP repaired per cycle determines fun factor. It's not that exciting to boost 1% of your shields in one go, but boosting like 45% in one cycle is the reason why daring and courageous people love active tanks.14

This is quite possibly the worst idea I've seen out of CCP in years, and that includes Monoclegate.

Shield rigs penalizing speed is beyond ******** (guess why shield ships are more popular than armor tankers for PvP, especially small-gang PvP? Hint: it's because unlike their armor counterparts (which must fully commit to a fight due to being slow pieces of ****), shield-tanked ships can actually skirmish.

Posted - 2012.04.23 18:44:00 -
[136] - Quote
I think its very interesting in concept. I like anything that breaks the mold of "One rig to rule them all" eg Trimarks and CDFExtenders.

I'd also like to see how it plays out in concept.

TBH though Plates vs LSEs still need work. There still is only one plate anyone ever fits, thats the Rolled Tungsten. Most HP, Good on mass, good fitting etc.

I think in conjunction to this you should have different types of plates eg Nanofiber gives a small perportional increase in HP, but reduces hull HP and has slim to no mass addition, or even reduces mass.

Rolled tungsten does the most EHP gain, but has the most mass

Crystaline carbonate has a nice boost to EHP, but also acts like a shield boost amp by granting bonuses to armor rep, or even agility which is very gallente.

Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.

But thats exactly how the rigs work now.They affect a basic ship stat (resistance / shield / armor) and get penalized at another basic ship stat (speed / sig).

No, it's not.

The active tanking rigs (the ones that modify cap draw, repping amount and cycle time) still affect the ship's base stats GÇö sig radius or speed GÇö rather than the fitting requirements of the shield boosters or reppers.

If you had read all my other replies, you would know, that I want to remove the penalties on the active tanking rigs, but except of them (who the fck uses them anyway? (especially shield active tanked rigs)) rigs are fine now.

If you had read all my other replies, you would know, that I want to remove the penalties on the active tanking rigs, but except of them (who the fck uses them anyway? (especially shield active tanked rigs)) rigs are fine now.

What you want to see changed doesn't change the fact that your answer was incorrect: what Callic describes is not how rigs work now.

Fon Revedhort wrote:

Just the reverse - active tank should provide boosting in large chunks, otherwise it degenerates into boring passive regenetation, something alike current fugly Drakes.

The ratio between total HP and HP repaired per cycle determines fun factor.

It's also why active tanks are pointless: because it means your reps add roughly zero hitpoints and thus become meaningless.GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥

Posted - 2012.04.23 18:53:00 -
[141] - Quote
Ya have to agree, shields are supposed to be faster than armor, the idea of shields get sig radius peanlty and armor get speed penalty... are GOOD as they currently are...

Now it could be said that the AMOUNTS that the penalties are need to be adjusted... i mean honestly i think the armor penalty is pretty heavy while the sig radius penalty could be honestly harsher.

Posted - 2012.04.23 18:55:00 -
[142] - Quote
The current ability of shield tanked ships to wholly dictate the engagement in k-space needs to be nerfed. Not 100% that this is the best way but it is better than nothing. Also, needs more shield tears.

Bad move, why would any form of shield mod slow you down when it has no mass ... ? Oh wait nothing in Eve makes senseAnd since when are resist rigs a purely passive thing? if you don't want to worsen your cap usage then they are a great alternative, you seriously need to re-think on this one

So much this. In addition, since when are gallente based on speed, when their racial EWAR bonus is to disable mwd at great range, slow someone down by 90% and damp the **** out of someone so he has to come close to you anyway?This change makes no sense at all and actually hurts smallgang pvp, while buffing blobfests. Drakes having a speed penalty instead of sig bloom is huge when youre fighting with 1000 people and not really need to navigate around the field anyway, but when it comes to smallgang nano flight the speed penalty is really harsh and the sig bloom reduction can be neglected.

If you had read all my other replies, you would know, that I want to remove the penalties on the active tanking rigs, but except of them (who the fck uses them anyway? (especially shield active tanked rigs)) rigs are fine now.

What you want to see changed doesn't change the fact that your answer was incorrect: what Callic describes is not how rigs work now.

Fon Revedhort wrote:

Just the reverse - active tank should provide boosting in large chunks, otherwise it degenerates into boring passive regenetation, something alike current fugly Drakes.

The ratio between total HP and HP repaired per cycle determines fun factor.

It's also why active tanks are pointless: because it means your reps add roughly zero hitpoints and thus become meaningless.

They are not pointless, they are niche.

What they need is a meaningful advantage over passive ones - and superior mobility hits the spot perfectly.

No one expects that blobtards will switch to active tanks. It's not the point of these changes. The whole point of this is giving active tanks an advantage.

In addition, since when are gallente based on speed, when their racial EWAR bonus is to disable mwd at great range, slow someone down by 90% and damp the **** out of someone so he has to come close to you anyway?

Since the idea behind it is not that you stay away, but that you slow him down, disable his dps at ranges where he can shoot you but you can't shoot back, then close the gap fast and overwhelm him with your superior shortrange DPS.Basially, since ever.

This is quite possibly the worst idea I've seen out of CCP in years, and that includes Monoclegate.

Shield rigs penalizing speed is beyond ******** (guess why shield ships are more popular than armor tankers for PvP, especially small-gang PvP? Hint: it's because unlike their armor counterparts (which must fully commit to a fight due to being slow pieces of ****), shield-tanked ships can actually skirmish.

This is quite possibly the worst idea I've seen out of CCP in years, and that includes Monoclegate.

Shield rigs penalizing speed is beyond ******** (guess why shield ships are more popular than armor tankers for PvP, especially small-gang PvP? Hint: it's because unlike their armor counterparts (which must fully commit to a fight due to being slow pieces of ****), shield-tanked ships can actually skirmish.

In addition, since when are gallente based on speed, when their racial EWAR bonus is to disable mwd at great range, slow someone down by 90% and damp the **** out of someone so he has to come close to you anyway?

Since the idea behind it is not that you stay away, but that you slow him down, disable his dps at ranges where he can shoot you but you can't shoot back, then close the gap fast and overwhelm him with your superior shortrange DPS.Basially, since ever.

Posted - 2012.04.23 19:18:00 -
[150] - Quote
As much as I am giddy at the concept of nerfing passive tanks and boosting active tanks, this is the wrong way to go about it.Yes, passive tanking is insanely powerful, specifically shields.Yes, active tanking is the black sheep of tanking, specifically armor.

The biggest problem is scaling the two types of tanking for different types of fights and different, uh, price brackets:For roaming, active tanking is acceptable, but as the number of targets go up, becomes more and more useless.Passive tanking on the other hand, is always acceptable, and becomes the method of choice as the number of targets begin to ramp up into the large scale.

Both are heavily augmented by link warfare, however one uses cap, and the other does not.At the same time, shields regenerate and armor does not, giving a sizable edge to shield tanking.

These proposals don't change any of the above constants.Active tanking will still be comparatively weak, and passive tanking will still be the ideal method.As someone who routinely pilots active-tanking armor ships, I never stop to think how much slower my rep augmenting rigs are making me. Is it a downside, sure, but it's not something so ridiculous that I think a whole redesign is needed.

Since the speed/agility changes we (CSM6) made in Crucible, this proposal seems a bit outdated and unnecessary. If you want to change the speed penalty from active armor rigs, go right ahead, but there's no reason to nerf the **** out of passive rigs. The number of ships that gain from this is far smaller than the number of ships that will be nerfed quite heavily.

There are a handful of ships that come to mind that would be heavily effected by these changes;The Hurricane, Vagabond, Cynabal, Drake, & Tier3 BCs

The Hurricane needs a slap, but this isn't the way to do it.It's got too much grid and too much speed. Reduce both stats at the ship, not in the rigs.

The Vagabond is a fine ship, leave it alone.

The Cynabal is too agile, has too much SS, and too much grid.Reduce the stats at the ship, not in the rigs.

Tier3s are heavily niched ships, which are too fast/agile (moreso with links).They're faster and more agile than HACs, which have no way to compete.Reduce the stats at the ships, not in the rigs.

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.